A01760:1046
A dispute against the English-popish ceremonies, obtruded upon the Church of Scotland Wherein not…A dispute against the English-popish ceremonies, obtruded vpon the Church of Scotland Wherein not…
A dispute against the English-popish ceremonies, obtruded upon the Church of Scotland Wherein not only our own arguments [sic] against the same are strongly confirmed, but likewise the answers and defences of our opposites, such as Hooker, Morton ... Forbesse, &c. particularly confuted.A dispute against the English-popish ceremonies, obtruded vpon the Church of Scotland Wherein not only our ovvne argumemts [sic] against the same are strongly confirmed, but likewise the ansvveres and defences of our opposites, such as Hooker, Mortoune ... Forbesse, &c. particularly confuted.
Leiden: printed by W. Christiaens, 1637
Title page typeset from the transcription.
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
Again, if the reader follow the other opinion, which holdeth that Christ had no other Supper that night before the Evangelical, except the Paschal only; yet still the answer to Paybody, shall be easy; for whereas he would prove from those words of Luke & Paul, Likewise also the Cup after Supper, that when Matthew and Mark say, As they did eat, Jesus took Bread, their meaning is only this, After Supper, Jesus took Bread: he reasoneth very inconsiderately: forasmuch as Luke & Paul lay not of the Bread, but of the Cup only, that Jesus took it after Supper. And will Paybody say, that he took the Cup so soon as he took the Bread? If we will speak with Scripture, we must say, that as they did eat the preceding Supper, (to which we read they sate down,) Jesus took Bread: for nothing at all intervened betwixt their eating of that other preceding Supper, and his taking ⟨p. 28⟩of the Eucharistical Cup, there intervened the Taking, Blessing, Breaking, Distributing, and Eating of the Bread.
Againe, if the reader follow the other opinion, which holdeth that Christ had no other Supper that night before the Evangelicall, except the Paschall only; yet sti'l the answere to Paybody, shall be easie; for whereas he would prove from those words of Luke & Paul, Likewise also the Cup after Supper, that when Mathew and Mark say, As they did eat, Iesus tooke Breade, their meaning is only this, After Supper, Iesus tooke Bread: he reasoneth very inconsideratly: forasmuch as Luke & Paul lay not of the Bread, but of the Cup only, that Iesus tooke it after Supper. And will Paybody say, that he tooke the Cup so soone as he tooke the Bread? If we will speake with Scripture, we must say, that as they did eat the preceeding Supper, (to which we reade they sate downe,) Iesus tooke Bread: for nothing at all interveened betwixt their eating of that other preceeding Supper, and his taking ⟨p. 28⟩of the Eucharisticall Cup, there interveened the Taking, Blessing, Breaking, Distributing, and Eating of the Bread.